The following table includes model checkers that have
(1) a web site from which it can be downloaded,
(2) a declared license,
(3) a description published in archived literature, and
(4) a Wikipedia article describing it.

DVE input language: a system is described as Network of Extended Finite State Machines communicating via shared variables and unbuffered channels. Does not contain support for buffered channels and for checking the type of message to be received without performing the receive proper.

FC2: (Common Format V2) Machine-level ASCII representation for synchronized (hierarchical) networks of automata. Defined by the Esprit Basic Research Action CONCUR, 1992. Used as an input and exchange format by a number of verification tools, mainly in the area of process algebras.

LNT: LOTOS New Technology; a specification language inspired by process calculi, functional programming languages, and imperative programming languages; LNT was designed as a modern replacement for LOTOS and E-LOTOS.

PEPA: Performance Evaluation Process Algebra; it is a stochastic process algebra designed for modelling computer and communication systems.

Plain MC: simple text-file formats used in MRMC and PRISM.

Promela: Process or Protocol Meta Language; it is a verification modeling language. The language allows for the dynamic creation of concurrent processes to model, for example, distributed systems.

TLA+: General-purpose specification language based on the Temporal Logic of Actions, originally used for distributed and concurrent systems. The language for the specifications and their properties is the same.

CTL: Computation Tree Logic; a branching-time logic, meaning that its model of time is a tree-like structure in which the future is not determined; there are different paths in the future, any one of which might be an actual path that is realized.

There exists a few papers that systematically compare various model checkers on a common case study. The comparison usually discusses the modelling tradeoffs faced when using the input languages of each model checker, as well as the comparison of performances of the tools when verifying correctness properties. One can mention:

In 1999, Judi Romijn compared two model checkers (CADP and SPIN) on the HAVi interoperability audio-video protocol for consumer electronics.[3]

In 2003, Yifei Dong, Xiaoqun Du, Gerard J. Holzmann, and Scott A. Smolka published a comparison of four model checkers (namely: Cospan, Murphi, SPIN, and XMC) on a communication protocol, the GNU i-protocol.[4]

In 2018, F. Mazzanti and A. Ferrari published a comparison of ten model checkers (namely: CADP, CPN Tools, FDR4, NuSMV/nuXmv, mCRL2, ProB, SPIN, TLA+, UMC, and UPPAAL) on a train supervision problem, taking into account both the user-friendliness of the languages and the performance of the tools.[6]